Free beer, and a question...

Anarchy...what is it? A group of lawless people doing what they want. What happens if you do not listen to these anarchists. Do they just leave
your food water transportation security and safety alone. say if you do not want to listen to them... thats fine hear is a flower. No. They control
it.

Democrates...Anarchists. Facists...anarchists. Socialists... anarchists. Republicans. Either abide by our rules pay our taxes or your property
will be seized you will be arrested or exiled. So in a jist... Anarchist socialist pigs.

You have to participate in the united states socialist society and pay taxes to the Fed. Failure to do so results in repossesion of property and
personal property eviction from land arrests... Or you could live out in nature, but be careful. If they find out you are living on land you do not
own and not paying the appropriate property tax you will be jailed.

Socialism is the action or state of any group of people providing either Goods, Services, Money or Information to any member of the group who needs it
reguardless of the greater or lesser level of contribution of any individual to the group.

There in lies the problem as this tends to go against Human Nature and Human thoughts to what is or is not fair. It is not the same thing as Communism
although Socialism is a practice in any Communistic system.

Socialism is by and by used in the U.S. as Welfare and other Federal and State Free Services for the poor are available. Still it is not Communism as
if you are Wealthy you are not entitled to these services. This tends to upset Americans in General as most Americans believe in a Hard Work creates
the ability for a person to select what level of expert care or various services they desire. A State or Federal controlled program is never
desired.

I live in Massachusetts and we all have Healthcare. Rep. Governor Romney in partnership with the predominantly Democratic Legislature passed a
Healthcare Plan in which private Insurance Companies as well as a State sponcered Insurance for those who could not afford it and State Planned
Buisiness Insurance Plans which drastically lowered the cost of employee insurance costs for small businesses.

Everyone is required to purchase Healthcare and if one does not have the money it is free and if one can not afford the standard payments those
payments are lowered depending upon ones income.

The Cost Cutting Idea is that since everyone in the State must pay in...this increases the total amount of money earned by the Private Insurance
Companies thereby lowering the rates and cost. It has worked fairly well and although I am wealthy my premiums have actually gone down.

This is Socialism not Communism and as this plan is designed it does not allow those who do not work as hard as others if they are capable to get a
free ride...they MUST pay in. Those who have no income and are capable of work must attend job seminars and attempt to get a job. Those who are
disabled and poor or indegent with cause get Healthcare free.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about
1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose
the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called
themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed
in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism.

And they both mean the workers common ownership of the means of production.

Now once again the question is NOT 'what is socialism', I know what socialism is, the question is....

"How can Anarchists be socialists if socialism is a government/state system?"

I have given the answer, and plenty of evidence that anarchists are socialists, anyone who actually reads my posts should get it. I obviously have
too much faith in the ATS membership.

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the
workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked
and fundamental difference.

No, Anarchism was an organised workers movement for the liberation of the working class from the exploitation of capitalism.

What you see in the media, dudes wearing black and smashing up property is not who, or what, I'm talking about.

Anarchist are not lawless, they commit political acts. The majority of anarchists commit no crimes at all. Bakunin for example was not a criminal,
neither was Proudhon (first person to call themselves an Anarchist in print, and yes he was a socialist).

A Communist System has NEVER worked in reality as it should. A true Communist System means that everyone within a group pools together their work and
resources and the fruits are then shared equally by all.

This concept is COMPLETELY AGAINST HUMAN NATURE. In every Communist Country the Leadership have become dictators and place themselves above the
common individual. Since an individual makes and gets the same as another there is very little incentive to do a good job and this also breeds Black
Markets and other systems designed to get around the Communist one.

Socialism can and is a part of many a Democracy and is not so all encompassing as Communism. One could even say that the States as well as Federal
Government that supply funds from Tax Collection to build roads and other public programs is an example of Socialism.

Socialism does not have to be carried out to the point that the plan goes against Human Nature. We can all see the value in pooling resources and
programs that help those who need it. Socialism does not have to mean we all get the same no matter what we do for work or how hard we work.

My State of Massachusetts has Universal Healthcare. It works. My Healthcare costs are down. Emergency Room Costs for the Hundreds of Thousands who
used to stiff the Hospital because they did not have insurance...well those costs no longer exist.

A Communist System has NEVER worked in reality as it should. A true Communist System means that everyone within a group pools together their work and
resources and the fruits are then shared equally by all.

A communist system has never been tried, so that is a mute argument.

This concept is COMPLETELY AGAINST HUMAN NATURE. In every Communist Country the Leadership have become dictators and place themselves above
the common individual. Since an individual makes and gets the same as another there is very little incentive to do a good job and this also breeds
Black Markets and other systems designed to get around the Communist one.

There are no communist countries so you are not making an argument against communism. You are making a good argument against state-capitalism and
dictatorships.

Socialism can and is a part of many a Democracy and is not so all encompassing as Communism. One could even say that the States as well as
Federal Government that supply funds from Tax Collection to build roads and other public programs is an example of Socialism.

Again communism is socialism, you are referring to liberalism.

Socialism is not free healthcare, again you are referring to liberalism, not socialism.

And ONCE AGAIN this thread is not whether socialism can work, or even what it is. The point of this thread was to have people who think socialism is
a political system explain how anarchists can be socialists.

Can you explain how anarchists are socialist by your definition of socialism? Yes or no?

That is the first time I have ever heard anyone make such a connection...EVER.

I am an Independent and the vast majority of Americans have both Conservative and Liberal views. In my opinion it matters not if a program is deamed
Liberal or Conservative. It only matters if the program works!

I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative and even though some have labeled the Mass. Healthcare law as Liberal...it has lowered
costs so in my view that makes it Conservative.

An Anarchist lives by the tenents of the right of the Strong to do as they wish. How you can possibly connect this to socialism I have no idea.

I've never done this before, so go easy on me. I'm posting to explain why I'm not posting (anymore) in this thread. I tried once, then tried to
follow along. Perhaps you're having the same difficulty I did.

For me, the problem is attempting to communicate. We have a rough idea of what "Socialism" and "Communism" mean, and while our definition is not
precise it serves us well and gets us into the ballpark of a discussion.

Here, we're running across "Politician speak." There's a lot of words but one can not walk away with any definite idea of what was just said.
It's a combination of jargon, vague words and phrases, denials, and semi-logical arguments. The total effect is head-scratching.

"There is no socialism because it's never been tried in it's pure form. Socialism is not what you think it is, or really, what anybody thinks it
is. It's a combination of neo-Marxian classicism, and post-revolutionary liberation against bourgeois tendencies created by capitalistic
imperialism. All of this leading to equality, except not strict equality, and the workers own everything, except no individual worker owns anything,
at least not in the discredited sense of ownership which has been proven by our researchers to impose reactionary thoughts." And on, and on, and on.
I just couldn't get through it.

You know I respect you, and your patient and dedicated performance in this thread only deepens that respect.

I have always been a very direct person and I have little patience for people who through their following of a political party or agenda...have made
or copy the Politi-speak of people who have made their own definitions of words as well as confined such words to a VERY narrow use.

I have always found that people who do this are those who wish to appear smart by talking Gobbledy Gook. LOL!

A word such as Socializm has a wide variety of definitions and use and can be applied to many things. Communism is much more specific and
specifically applies to a system of government.

When people start creating and limiting their concepts about what something is or is not...that is when we get problems. It is the start of a form of
censorship in that a group of people are changing what something can be because of their own beliefs.

If there is one thing constant and good in this World it is diversity. To constrain thought is the first step to stupidity.

Some people might need a little more convincing of the association of anarchism and socialism...

It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and
anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the
powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic.

I would disagree though that there are two kinds of socialism, socialism is socialism. It can have a state, or it can be state free. But if the
workers do not own the means of production, it is not socialism. Socialism is an economic system whereby the workers own the means to produce in
common.

The term has been confused because it's been used in an extremely broad way. The term has been appropriated by different organizations, who claim to
define it's meaning, since it first came into use. The Liberals used the term in the 1800's and is why Marx and others used the term "communism"
instead.

But even Liberals new that liberalism was not socialism.

"Liberalism is not socialism and never will be" - Winston Churchill, 1908, as Liberal Party candidate for Dundee

What the soviets did, to dispel another myth, was not communism. The Bolsheviks simply used a twisted version of Marxism in order to gain support
from the people so they could take state power, and install their own agenda which had nothing to do with communism.

Outside of mainstream politics and political/social history communism/socialism was a working class labour movement, not soviet military style state
power. The real communists apposed the Bolsheviks...

Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks were a series of rebellions and uprisings against the Bolsheviks led or supported by left wing groups
including Socialist Revolutionaries, Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists. Some were in support of the White Movement while some
tried to be an independent force. The uprisings started in 1918 and continued through the Russian Civil War and after until 1922. In response the
Bolsheviks increasingly abandoned attempts to get these groups to join the government and suppressed them with force.

"Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism.""Peter Kropotkin, "Anarchism", p. 46

Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate
in Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is
"not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the
individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious
collective interest." [quoted by Colin Ward, "Introduction", Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the
fundamental one -- between us [anarchists] and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or
Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p.
274

That is the first time I have ever heard anyone make such a connection...EVER

Really? How could you not?

Have you read any of my replies in this post.? Try the last one, above this one...

Read carefully, check the links, read some more, then come back and tell me anarchists are not socialists.

Proudhon, the first person to ever call themselves an anarchist, was a socialist. Anarchists were socialists who apposed the political path to
socialism, such as Marxism, and wanted direct action and immediate change from the capitalist to a socialist economy.

This is why I can't make my point.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (French: [pjɛʁ ʒɔzɛf pʁudɔ̃]) (15 January 1809 – 19 January 1865) was a French politician, mutualist philosopher,
economist, and socialist. He was a member of the French Parliament and the first person to call himself an "anarchist". He is considered among the
most influential theorists and organizers of anarchism. After the events of 1848 he began to call himself a federalist.[1]

His publication "What is Property", published in 1840, was what started the anarchist movement.

The French Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is regarded as the first self-proclaimed anarchist, a label he adopted in his groundbreaking work What is
Property?, published in 1840. It is for this reason that some claim Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchist theory.[38]

Look...you are picking and choosing out od the multitude of definitions given by a multitude of people for the words Liberal, Conservative, Anarchist
and Socialism.

I could very well do the same thing and find a link and definition that fits what I want it to fit. But I do not as I know that these words have a
variety of meanings and can be used to describe a variety of things. They cannot be pigonholed into just one definition for all time.

As example...I could label a Republican Congressman LIBERAL for the way he concentrates and acts upon multiple Conservative issues. Thus...He is
LIBERAL in the multitude of legislation that will cut red tape he can support.

Conservative is the same.

Socialism can be applied to so many thing I could take all night listing them and to imply that anyone who is in favor of Social Programs is an
Anarchist is beyond stupid.

No I am not, I am showing what the major players in the anarchist movement said, the people that actually started the modern anarchist movement.
Obviously you know nothing about anarchism or you would know that. The people who created the anarchist movement were socialists, Proudhon, Bakunin,
Malatesta, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman. Do you even know who they are? Look them up.

Even modern Anarchists such as Chomsky.

Or Colin Ward...

"The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until
1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology. Proudhon argued that organization without
government was both possible and desirable. In the evolution of political ideas, anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism
and socialism, and the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these..." Colin Ward,
'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction' ch.1, p.1, 1995

It really doesn't matter though, if any anarchist supports socialism then socialism cannot be a state system can it?

"As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it
remains a thing of the people." From the book 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908

It was born among the people then stolen and demonised by the right-wing establishment. This is the reality of our modern history.

Founded in January 1891 at the Congress of Capolago, at which around 80 delegates from Italian socialist and anarchist groups participated.
Notable figures included, Errico Malatesta, Luigi Galleani, Amilcare Cipriani, Andrea Costa and Filippo Turati...

I am familiar with Chomsky but the people you list were not and never have been REAL ANARCHISTS or even KNOW what it is to be one.

A true Anarchist is not one of these kids with a ski mask who travels to Canada to protest the G-12 either. Those kids are just wanna be's who have
no idea what it is to be an Anarchist.

I will tell you who and what the true Anarchists are. Have you ever heard the term 1%er? These people are the True Anarchists and always have been.
They have been around longer then those Lilly White bunch of Snobbish so self called intellectuals that would cry screaming home to momma if they ever
even met a 1%er.

the question is not really answerable since it is not even applicable to the real world.

The way it is presented does so without any of the necessary entanglements a person would go through to even clarify and define his political
ideologies and personal ethos.

Let me explain.

If I am an anarchist and I OWN a business where I dont believe in MY right of sole direction of the business and then turn to the workers to make them
equal partners, then YES, I could be an anarchist as well as a socialist.

If you want to define socialism as a workers owned business free of ANY centralized regulation and profit distribution, you would have to define the
owner that makes such a situation as being an anarchist and surrendering HIS work (business) to those that he employs. In such a situation the HEAD
worker who may happen to be an anarchist, the business owner who worked and saved to open his business, would have to trade his role as owner and lead
manager to a uniform role like that of his employees. He would have to make them equal partners in order to be an anarchist as well as a socialist
since a true anarchist wouldnt even ascribe to the authority of fellow workers over him.

One is personal and the other is community based. The individual anarchist would have to compromise and surrender his personal autonomy to a group
collective. While anarchists can live in groups, they are free to defy the group, in fact defiance is not defiance, it is simply non compliance which
is acceptable in anarchism. A socialist community of workers would be able to establish rules for everyone which the former pure form anarchist would
then have to adhere to. He would not be able to defy those rules by noncompliance, he would be in an act of defiance when he refuses to comply. Rules
usually have consequences for their non adherence. A pure form anarchist would prefer his PERSONAL freedom and autonomy over one he only has a small
share or voice in.

In essence it is not compatible. A true form anarchist would call a former anarchist that establishes a group authority over himself to not be an
anarchist at all. So that point is as mute as you saying that Communism has not been tried yet.

I want to throw this in here, answer if you like, or ignore at your own discretion.

Socialism requires a state presence at some point. While it may not have voice or vote in the production and employment of the people, it would have a
territorial authority where such a community would exist.

The armed forces or other security force for example would have to defend the pockets of little communities from aggression. Who would decide the
order and operation of the chain of command in a purely socialist country? If people working own their employment, how then could any military action
be coordinated, by vote? What of police and other social services? How would they operate if they are owned by the people they employ as well?

How would taxes be levied for their continued existence? Would it be a personal tax on everyone working or just one applied to everyone regardless. If
you do not pay for the services do you get coverage? In a socialist workers collective those who do not work do not get their share of profit. So
nationally those not "producing" would not OWN the countries services. They would not be entitled to fire protection of police security. IF they were
covered while not working to pay their share, they would then be EXPLOITING everyone else who is. They would get the benefits of the work of others.
That is not acceptable in socialism. You dont work?, you dont get pay. It sounds nice when you are talking about the owners profits, but sounds crappy
when you are talking about a poor guys right to anything if he doesnt produce.

Also, in a socialist state, would some one NOT working in government have a vote over how much a government employee gets paid? They are workers too.
They go into their places of employment and work many hours a day for pay. Do government workers get to decide their work conditions and how much is
their fair share of public money when handing out their pay checks? what else do they decide if they WORK for the government? Do they OWN the
government?

Why would they have less of a vote or say over their employment over that of a factory worker for example?

Police, soldiers, fire fighters, civil engineers, city hall clerks, ect....millions of people working who would have the right to decide how their
place of business operates and more importantly how much their fair share of pay is and what their responsibilities are.

You can not say these services are not necessary in a modern society or even a quasi primitive one. How would a workers paradise justify exploiting
government workers and civil servants as well as others with rules over their employment they dont get a voice or vote on?

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
the question is not really answerable since it is not even applicable to the real world.

It is applicable to anarchist and socialist theory.

This discussion was not supposed to be about your opinion of socialism.

I want someone to explain how anarchists can be socialists if socialism is not an economic system. Simple question, but as this thread proves no one
can answer it, and everyone has a different excuse why.

Yes the question is unanswerable, but not because of reality, but because you cannot come to terms with the fact that socialism is not what you have
been conditioned to believe it is. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, you all avoid facing the facts.

Socialism is not a political system, it is an economic system, and can be state controlled or state free, authoritarian or libertarian.

It's why Anarchism is also know as Libertarian Socialism. Go figure eh? But the logic seems be too much for this crowd.

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism".

Having said that though anarchists do not consider state-socialism to be socialism at all, but to be state-capitalism. Even Marx didn't advocate
state-socialism, the anarchists just didn't believe the temporary Marxian state would lead to socialism but to tyranny.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I am familiar with Chomsky but the people you list were not and never have been REAL ANARCHISTS or even KNOW what it is to be one.

Are you kidding me?

Proudhon was the first anarchist, his work "What is Property" started the modern anarchist movement. Bakunin is one of the most influential
anarchists there's ever been. He worked alongside Marx in the International Workers Federation. He had a falling out with Marx over the question of
guess what? The state.

The aim of this pamphlet is to do nothing more than present an outline of what the author thinks are the key features of Mikhail Bakunin's
anarchist ideas.

Bakunin was extremely influential in the 19th century socialist movement, yet his ideas for decades have been reviled, distorted or ignored.

Where is your evidence I am wrong? All you've provided so far is your, obviously uninformed, opinion.

You're just saying any old thing to avoid the question I am trying to get you to address. I have provided plenty of evidence, now man up and answer
the question...

Proudhon's work is a classic for many reasons. Not only did it put a name to a tendency within socialism ("I am an Anarchist") and raise a
battle-cry against inequality ("Property is Theft"), it also sketched a new, free, society: Anarchism.

The early inspirations for Emma Goldman’s circle of turn-of-the-century immigrant anarchists were the Haymarket martyrs, who were called
“anarchists” at a time when the term was nearly synonymous with “revolutionary socialist.” These men were all members of unions, active in the
eight-hour-day campaign, and did not seem to care too much about ideological differences between Bakunin and Marx. They borrowed from both, as well as
from William Morris and Victor Hugo.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.